Michael Apelt v. Charles Ryan
878 F.3d 800
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1988 Michael Apelt and his brother Rudi plotted and murdered Apelt’s wife to collect life insurance; Michael was convicted and sentenced to death.
- At sentencing, defense counsel Michael Villarreal conducted minimal mitigation investigation, sought but failed to obtain court-funded travel to Germany, and presented only limited character letters.
- Post-conviction proceedings developed extensive mitigation evidence from Germany (childhood abuse, poverty, special education, psychiatric treatment) that was not presented at sentencing.
- Apelt filed federal habeas under AEDPA; district court found trial counsel ineffective at sentencing (IAC) and granted relief, but denied other claims (funding, Atkins intellectual disability).
- Ninth Circuit reviews: affirms denial on funding and Atkins claims, finds trial counsel deficient but holds state-court rejection of prejudice was not objectively unreasonable, vacates district court’s grant of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Apelt) | Defendant's Argument (Arizona) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Procedural default / Martinez exception for IAC claims | PCR counsel (Villarreal) was ineffective on initial collateral review, so Martinez excused default of trial-IAC claims | State says procedural default bars federal review or that state merits ruling forecloses prejudice showing | Court finds Villarreal’s PCR performance was deficient under Martinez so federal review of IAC merits was permissible (cause established), and considers state merits under AEDPA |
| 2. Ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing (Strickland) | Villarreal failed to investigate and present classic mitigation (childhood abuse, poverty, special education, psychiatric history), so performance was deficient and prejudicial | State contends counsel’s efforts were reasonable given funding denial, some investigation by co‑counsel, and overwhelming aggravation; state courts reasonably found no prejudice | Court: counsel’s investigative performance was objectively deficient, but the state-court finding of no Strickland prejudice was not an unreasonable application of federal law under AEDPA — vacates district court grant |
| 3. Denial of funds to travel to Germany | Apelt: trial court’s refusal prevented development of mitigation and violated due process/Ake | Arizona: Villarreal made only undeveloped assertions and failed to supplement; denial was within discretion and consistent with precedent | Court affirms state-court denial — trial counsel failed to make required threshold showing, so no constitutional violation under then‑existing law |
| 4. Atkins (intellectual disability) claim | Apelt: IQ scores (61, 65) and adaptive deficits show intellectual disability under Atkins/Hall; German childhood school placement supports early onset | Arizona: state expert and record evidence (adult adaptive functioning, travel, jobs, manipulation) support finding of malingering and adequate adaptive skills; state court findings reasonable | Court affirms denial — substantial evidence supports state court’s conclusions on adaptive behavior and malingering; Atkins relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (Eighth Amendment bars execution of intellectually disabled persons)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (ineffective assistance in initial-review collateral proceedings can establish cause to excuse procedural default of trial‑stage IAC claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (AEDPA review limited to state-court record except in narrow circumstances)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to state-court decisions under AEDPA and Strickland)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (duty to investigate mitigating evidence; prejudice from failing to present classic mitigation)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (2005) (failure to investigate a defendant’s background can constitute deficient performance)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (indigent defendant entitled to access to psychiatric assistance when sanity or mental condition is a significant factor)
- McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (review of Arizona courts’ use of causal‑nexus language for mitigation and AEDPA deference issues)